Without really disagreeing with a number of things you say, it's also fair to say that we have an entire article based around a question the answer to which is essentially meaningless (given how low interest rates on checking accounts are). I expect that, for a broader population, a better question would be around the size of their "emergency fund."
> I expect that, for a broader population, a better question would be around the size of their "emergency fund."
Which other studies have revealed is "basically $0". This question is highly correlated with what you are referring to for the average American. You're just in a bubble so you don't see the relation because it's not related for you.
That's ok, but what I'm pointing out is that it's not "essentially meaningless" and dismissing it as such is actually being out-of-touch.
I think you're probably right that you could ask this question in a number of different ways and come up with at least highly correlated results. I'm not arguing with you. However, as someone involved in surveys among other things as part of my work, I do think precision matters. Otherwise, interpreting the results lead to exactly the sort of arguments you're seeing on this thread.
